DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 19 are pending in the present application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4 and 7 recite the limitation "a temperature of the electronic device" in lines 7, 5 and 10 respectively. There are antecedent basis issues for these limitations in these claims.
Specifically, “a temperature of the electronic device” is already recited in independent claim 1 and there are six other references to “the temperature of the electronic device” in claims 2-13 which depend from claim 1. It is unclear if these references to “the temperature of the electronic device” are distinct from the possibly newly recited “a temperature of the electronic device” limitations indicated above.
As best understood, for purpose of prosecution and to expedite prosecution the three references to “a temperature of the electronic device” will be considered as “the temperature of the electronic device” or the like similar to the other six.
However, positive in claim recitation of the metes and bounds applicant intends to claim as well as proper antecedent basis is required.
Claims 3, 5-6, 9-10 and 12 are rejected by dependency from claim 2 (as well as claim 4 in the case of claim 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yildiz et al. (US 20210034101; hereinafter Yildiz).
Regarding claim 1, Yildiz teaches an electronic device (abstract; see fig. 1) comprising:
a first housing (housing portion 14 with battery; see fig. 1);
a second housing (housing portion 14 with CPU; see fig. 1) coupled to the first housing and relatively movable with respect to the first housing (“opposing housing portions 14 rotationally coupled by a hinge assembly 36” [0032]);
a first temperature sensor disposed in the first housing (at least one of temperature sensors 46 in the first housing; see fig. 1);
a second temperature sensor disposed in the second housing (at least one of temperature sensors 46 in the second housing; see fig. 1);
at least one processor (at least embedded controller (EC) 32; see also CPU 20; see fig. 1); and
a memory operatively connected to the at least one processor (22; [0032] – both EC and CPU are connected with the RAM via at least motherboard 16; daughterboard 18; flexible cable 28 and associated wirelines), wherein the memory is configured to store executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to calculate a temperature of the electronic device based on at least one of measurement data provided by the first temperature sensor or measurement data provided by the second temperature sensor ([0035] and [0038] teach that the processor(s) / memory cooperate to calculate temperature / thermal conditions from the sensors via direct readings or estimations from nearby sensors).
Yildiz lacks direct and specific teaching that the instructions which cause the electronic device to calculate a temperature is/are based on a state of the second housing with respect to the first housing.
However, Yildiz does disclose that “for each of plural regions an expected thermal condition, such as skin temperature … is modeled based upon operating conditions of the flexible display, such as ... housing configuration” (emphasis added; [0042]) and that “operating conditions include ... time in a folded or planar state” (emphasis added; [0042]; see also [0048] teaching that the temperature of the fold section is monitored during extended fold periods of the device).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature calculations based on the state of the housings with respect to each other i.e. folder or planar of Yildiz with the concept of the calculation of temperature of the folded section based on the configuration of the housings as also taught and suggested in Yildiz. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected monitoring the temperature of a temperature sensitive zone such as the fold area to be one of several straightforward ways of protecting the temperature sensitive zone from damage (see at least [0048]) because protecting the device integrity and utility is taught and suggested as a stated design goal (see at least [0037] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Yildiz teaches that the executable instructions are configured to cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the electronic device to: update the calculated temperature based on a predetermined period; and calculate the temperature of the electronic device based on determining a relative movement of the second housing with respect to the first housing is stopped for a period of time equal to or greater than the predetermined period ([0048] teaches regarding temperature monitoring for at least “a predetermined time period” while the device is in a folded state in order to maintain proper temperature of the folded POLED display and open the device at the end of the period if required for display protection).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yildiz et al. (US 20210034101; hereinafter Yildiz) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20210125554; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 8, Yildiz teaches a substrate part (at least substrate portions of mother/daughter boards; see fig. 1) disposed in the first housing (daughterboard 18; see fig. 1) and having the at least one processor (32; “EC”) disposed on a surface of the substrate part (see fig. 1), wherein the first temperature sensor is disposed on another surface of the substrate part such that the first temperature sensor at least partially overlaps the at least one processor (see left most temperature sensor 46 shown in fig. 1, in exploded view, in this conceptual area / configuration).
Yildiz does not directly and specifically state that the surface of the substrate part and the other surface of the substrate part face each other.
However, Lee teaches an information handling system having plural substrates and temperature sensors (abstract; see figs. 1 and 2 especially temperature sensors 88) where the sensors overlap and face processors (see figs. 1 and 2 in view of each other with the processor(s) – at least 22, 28 and 30 both supported by and facing substrate 36 having temperature sensors 88 in array and facing such processor(s)) and where the display portion is folded on a housing portion that is rotated ([0030]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the concepts regarding movable housings with temperature sensors placed with respect to processors in an electronic device of Yildiz with the concept of using the overlapping and processor facing temperature sensors of Lee. This is because such placement allows for detecting the temperature / heat emanating from the processor(s) and an efficient and direct manner. This is important to properly measure the thermal state of the device for thermal management (see abstract and [0001] of Lee and abstract and [0040] of Yildiz).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yildiz et al. (US 20210034101; hereinafter Yildiz) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Park (US 20220091641).
Regarding claim 13, Yildiz does not directly and specifically state that at least one of the first temperature sensor or the second temperature sensor comprises a thermistor.
However, Park teaches an electronic device with first and second housings which are movable relative to each other (abstract) having at least a first temperature sensor (221; [0079]) where the first temperature sensor is a thermistor ([0079] “a first sensor 221 (e.g., … a thermistor) … for detecting (or measuring, or sensing) the temperature of the electronic device”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the concepts regarding movable housings with temperature sensors in an electronic device of Yildiz with the specific concept of using the thermistor as at least one of the temperature sensors of Park. This is because such a thermistor is well known for reliable temperature measurement. This is important in order to provide accurate temperature readings from a well-known temperature sensitive element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The best prior art of record Yildiz et al. (US 20210034101), Park (US 20220091641), and Lee et al. (US 20210125554), fail to specifically teach the invention as claimed. The limitations regarding a method of calculating a temperature of an electronic device having a first housing; a second housing moveable with respect to the first housing; a first and a second temperature sensor disposed in the first and second housings respectively; and at least one processor performing the method in independent claim 14 when combined with the specific limitations of the steps regarding a housing movement state identification operation; calculating the distance between centers of the housings as a smallest value and as a largest value where the temperature is based on the first and second temperature sensors as specifically recited in independent claim 14 as well as all additional limitations also in independent claim 14 distinguish the present invention from the combined prior art.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 14-19. The examiner cannot find specific teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine the elements of these references other than applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
In addition, though not dispositive on US prosecution, see International Search Report (Korea) of record in the file wrapper as of 01/29/2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 2-7, 9-10 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best prior art of record Yildiz et al. (US 20210034101), Park (US 20220091641), and Lee et al. (US 20210125554), fail to specifically teach the invention as claimed. The limitations in independent claim 1 when combined with the limitations regarding calculating the distance between centers of the housings as a smallest value and as a largest value where the temperature is based on the first and second temperature sensors alternatively as specifically recited in dependent claim 2 as well as all additional limitations in claim 2 and also in the base and intervening claims distinguish the present invention from the combined prior art.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 2-7, 9-10 and 12. The examiner cannot find specific teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine the elements of these references other than applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
In addition, though not dispositive on US prosecution, see International Search Report (Korea) of record in the file wrapper as of 01/29/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights